Posted on 04/21/2010 8:28:03 PM PDT by MrChips
OK, so I have read a little, listened a little, and figured that the question of Obama's citizenship and birth would never be answered, so why dive into it. But just now, I listened to Anderson Cooper on CNN (I know, I know, why am I watching PRAVDA?) blabber on and on in a very assertive, denunciatory tone to someone from Arizona over that state's recent passage of a bill requiring presidential candidates to prove their citizenship. Cooper went on ad nauseum about how stupid anyone is who questions Obama, how the birth certificate has been PROVEN to be authentic, that the matter should be settled. But the adamancy in his voice bothered me. Why is he so exercised about it if that is really true? He'd be calm, or so I said to myself. Anyway, anybody else watch this?
You posted to and quoted the wrong person.
Actually, it may be stranger than not having a BC.
It may be because the State of Hawaii allows foreign birth certificates to be maintained in their vaults as the vital document of birth.
Butterdezillion was sent the forms by Fukino which allow a person to do just that!
OOPS! So sorry, Tigerseye. My apologies.
No need to apologize but you might want to ping the one who did say that. I’ll try reading it even though it agrees with me. lol
I am glad you posted this son - I think you have potential ...
[This is gonna be long ...]
HOWEVER:
From "A Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws" [Dicey, Page 164]:
Rule 20:
(1) "British subject" means any person who owes permanent allegiance [See Note 1] to the Crown.
(2) "Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.
(3) "Naturalized British subject" means any British subject who is not a natural-born British subject.
Note 1: "Permanent" allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes " temporary " allegiance to the Crown.
So, in order to be a British Subject - there MUST be permanent allegiance, and NOT that of an alien. And a Natural Born Subject is a British Subject [owing a permanent allegiance to the sovreign] at the moment of his birth [which generally means having been born within the realm].
Now, the seminal citizenship [subjectship] case in British Law is Calvin's Case 1608 [7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377]. It states:
... 3. There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because, though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitai, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are subjects to the King of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject ..."
Actual obedience meant permanent allegiance [ligeance] and that had to be from the child' parents.
Additionally, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England [which is a commentary on English Law - and NOT the law itself] stated the following:
" ... The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such ...
Notice that Blackstone qualifies their status by the phrase "generally speaking". He does not state it to specifically exclude the children of aliens who are claimed as natural born subjects of their fathers' country, but he STRONGLY implies it further on by also stating that no subject can owe two [2] allegiances to two [2] different sovreigns.
Now, the British Nationality Act of 1730 [which governed British citizenship at the time of the American Revolution] stated:
" ... the Children of all natural-born Subjects, born out of the Ligeance of her said late Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, should be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born ... May it please your most Excellent Majesty that it may be declared and enacted, and be it declared and enacted by the Children of natural-born Subjects born out of the Allegiance of the Crown, declared to be natural-born ... That all Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited Clause in the said Act of the seventh Year of the Reign of her said late Majesty, and of this present Act, be adjudged and taken to be, and all such Children are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever ..."
Furthermore, there is John Jay's letter to George Washington in 1787, stating:
"... Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen ..."
There was not much American Statute Law in place at the time. When the separation from Great Britain was complete, ALMOST ALL of the law used in the United States was British Law [except that which we disagreed with]. The lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers were trained either at English Law Schools, American Universities [which taught English Law], or studied under established attornies [who, themselves, were trained at English or American Universities that taught English Law].
Given Calvin's Case, the British Nationality Act of 1730, Blackstone, Dicey, and the Founding Fathers' fear of foreigners becoming President - the only possible definition of natural born citizen is the following:
A "natural born citizen" is born within the dominion of the United States and owes a single, permanent allegiance to the United States at the moment of his birth. That single, permanent allegiance is conveyed through the parents and the only way the parents could convey such allegince was for them to be citizens [natural born or naturalized].
The British Nationality Act of 1730 conferred natural born subject status upon children born outside of the British dominion to fathers who were themselves natural born subjects. And birth on US soil conferred automatic US citizenship to such a child. Due to the dual allegiance - there IS NO WAY the Founding Fathers would consider Obama to be natural born. Citizen, yes ... natural born, no.
Given this, in tota, there is only one reasonable definition that the Founding Fathers intended and that is:
A natural born citizen is born within the dominion of the United States AND with a single allegiance to the United States, of two [2] citizen parents, who each owe a single allegiance to the United States.
“If you read Wong Kim Ark closely, it acknowledges that the children of aliens were considered natural born subjects...”
No.
U.S. citizens aren’t subjects to any monarch and English Common Law was not the actual basis for the U.S. Constitution.
In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory written by Professor Lawrence B Solum of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.
[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]
[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]
[Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.
The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject”. For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.
In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.
The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]
As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of ’natural born’ subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.
And as pointed out above, please do not come back with the same old lame references to Blackstone & English common law, we know for a fact from the very 1st SCOTUS Justice Washington appointed, a Justice who was only 2nd to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution that the definition for US citizens was not derived from English common law, but on the law of Nations which is the law of nature:
“The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”
Additionally, there is no legal statute concerning Natural Born Citizenship because it isn’t a type of citizenship in our nation. It is merely a circumstance of one’s birth and an eligibility requirement in order to be President per the U.S. Constitution.
BRAVO!
Glad I’m not alone in slaying the dragons of ignorance.
Hey! watch it with the Pravda cracks! Since 1992, Pravda has been a reasonably good newspaper: their online version (admittedly a bit tabloidish) even covered the Obama eligibility issue in the way we wish the American media would.
Amazing isn’t it ???
As I understand it, the one in Hawaii is thought to have been doctored, no?
It’s just an online scan of a Summary
Not the original as McCain and others have shown;
Only half of the needed info is on it .
and many have said it has been doctored, since it’s only pixels on a screen, who can tell.???
The question is, why won’t he just hand the original long version on a piece of paper over for everyone to look at ——— he refuses, although he said in his book that he had it!!!
McCain did exactly this, when challenged.
Why can’t Barack????????????????????????????
Technically, The left would love it if the Repubs ran a German rightwinger.......Hitler was a rightwinger.
Yes, he was a National SOCIALIST
Sounds left wing to me but in school they don’t teach you that.
I’ve {long ago} stopped wondering about the Birth Certificate. What continues to bother ME is the on-going LACK of documents from Obama’s Colleges and Universities.
When He applied to those schools; what claims did He make? What Nationality did those Schools enroll him AS?
IF none of those Institutions were suckered into giving “foreign Student status, discounts or Scholarships” to a Native Born American {of mixed races; including White}...WHY aren’t those documents On Line???
Indeed.
No, it isn’t correct. Some people assert that there are multiple classes of citizens in between natural born and naturalized but nothing in US law supports that.
And which National Socialist regime identifies itself as a Constitutional Republic?
Exactly.
I am amazed that the Left, and the White House, has anything to say about the AZ bill at all. They say there is no problem with Obambi’s qualifications, and the bill simply requires ALL candidates to follow a certain procedure to prove eligibility.
Where’s the beef?
What if AZ had come out and said “we believe Obama is eligible to serve, but we simply want to avoid unnecessary constitutional controversies in the future”? What would Mr. Cooper be having to blather about then? Yes, it is curious that the Left is so exercised over this. I suppose it could be because they think the more they bring it up, the more it heaps scorn on all conservatives.
Nice try, I guess.
read something yesterday St. Paul was a natural born citizen.
I have said for a while that my main interest in the case is that it appears that there is no established procedure to determine a President-elect's qualification to serve.
Essentially, our presidential nominees seem to be vetted only by party hacks, then everyone else defers to the party hacks in putting whoever on the ballot. Since there is no established procedure that is followed, there is no procedure or standard to challenge. And it goes on and on in circles.
The McCain Birthers in the Rat party, of course, actually went so far as to hold a congressional hearing on his eligibility. But, as seen, whether that happens or not is more attributable to politics than questions on the merits.
My point is this: state laws such as this one would be very helpful in causing litigation, both as to the procedure and the standard applied in the procedure to evaluate eligibility. This might get the SCOTUS to rule on NBC explicitly in the context of presidential qualifications (i.e., what the original intent of the Founders was in restricting the presidency to NBC).
I think the parties do presently "certify" a candidate. It's just that there is not, so far as I can tell, truly an established procedure, with a reviewable standard, and an established appeal process and remedy applied. IOW, it seems to be one of those yadda-yadda-yadda things, where some party hack who has no clue what he's supposed to be evaluating just says "if someone says they're a citizen and show some kind of paperwork, that's good enough for government party hack work."
This MUST be cleared up for the future. Why did the McCain Birthers hold congressional hearings on whether McCain was eligible? One, because of politics. Which is okay. But two, and this is the important one, because they know that a political party's certification of a candidate, or a political party's act in simply holding someone out as a candidate or nominee, is meaningless in terms of actually evaluating the candidate's qualification.
The McCain Birthers demonstrated quite clearly that politicians know that the current vetting for presidential candidates is nothing but party-hack-rubberstamping that is clueless about the legal and constitutional issues in presidential eligibility. But, of course, just because politicians know there is a problem, or a lack of adequate safeguards in a process, doesn't mean they will address that appropriately.
So should this matter be left up to the political whims of the opposing party or opposing candidates? That would be pretty stupid. Let's take it out of the realm of the purely political by establishing a standard and procedure that applies to ALL candidates in the future.
If someone wants to challenge the standard or the procedure, then go ahead. That would be fantastic. But right now there is nothing even to challenge in court, apparently. An issue of this potential magnitude is, incredibly, presently dependent solely upon whether politicians do or do not want to get involved in it. That's no way to protect and uphold the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.